Skip to comments.
White House Pokes Gun Owners in the Eye -- admits receiving "tremendous amount of e-mail"
email
| May 9, 2003
| GOA
Posted on 05/09/2003 5:59:10 PM PDT by lainie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 next last
Posted as an FYI & for discussion. The president is betting the farm that the bill won't cross his desk. For if it does, he will have no choice but to sign it. He either knows it has no chance, or is an idiot. Since none of us thinks he's an idiot, and these political things never happen by accident...
your support for "existing gun laws" means that you should support the EXISTING SUNSET
amen.
1
posted on
05/09/2003 5:59:10 PM PDT
by
lainie
To: lainie
Carl Rove told a director of Gun Owners of New Hampshire that they have received a "tremendous amount of e-mail" on this issue.
Seems to me I saw this on another thread, hmmmmmm.
2
posted on
05/09/2003 6:01:30 PM PDT
by
tet68
(Jeremiah 51:24 ..."..Before your eyes I will repay Babylon for all the wrong they have done in Zion")
To: lainie
Rove is a political genius. Except on certain issues, where he seems to be a blithering idiot. I guess nobody's perfect.
3
posted on
05/09/2003 6:04:55 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: lainie
There is no reason for anyone to own a semi auto weapon.. not for sport.. not for fun.. and certainly don't need one in self defense(unless that is you have a feeling that a russian 10 man kgb team is coming to your house to kill you in the next couple of days). Good for Bush.. to hell with idiocy that the NRA can stoop itself to.
4
posted on
05/09/2003 6:11:33 PM PDT
by
Almondjoy
To: Almondjoy
What do you consider to be a semi-auto weapon?
To: lainie

Pardon me while I...uuugh...snap...zip...zip...snap... there... put on this flame-proof suit. OK, all done.
With all the "horse trading" that goes on behind closed doors, don't be surprised if some fence-sitters in the Senate trade their votes in favor of the ban to gain the support of certain Democrats for tax cuts.
This weapon ban already exists. So, given a choice between extending something that already exists and getting some tax cuts, I'm for tax cuts 100%. YOU MAY NOW FLAME AWAY!!!!
I prefer napalm. Great flavor :)
6
posted on
05/09/2003 6:17:39 PM PDT
by
upchuck
(Contribute to "Republicans for Al Sharpton for President in 2004." Dial 1-800-SLAPTHADONKEY :)
To: tet68
hm. I missed that. interesting.
7
posted on
05/09/2003 6:21:07 PM PDT
by
lainie
(This post powered by very loud music.)
To: Almondjoy
I can shoot certain lever action and pump action rifles as fast as a semi.
Do you want to ban those also?
8
posted on
05/09/2003 6:21:28 PM PDT
by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
To: Almondjoy
There is no reason for anyone to own a semi auto weapon.. not for sport.. not for fun.. and certainly don't need one in self defenseSon, getting your education on Saturday morning cartoons is no way to go through life.
Do you know anything about firearms?
9
posted on
05/09/2003 6:22:11 PM PDT
by
LTCJ
To: Almondjoy
There is no reason for anyone to own a semi auto weapon.. not for sport.. not for fun.. I own numerous weapons of this type. They are both for sport and for fun, but that isn't the reason I own them. I own them because I want to, and that's all the reason I need. It's what is generally referred to as freedom and liberty. You and your kind can just live with it or end up in extremely prejudicial opposition with me and my kind at some time in the future.
10
posted on
05/09/2003 6:25:28 PM PDT
by
templar
To: upchuck
So, given a choice between extending something that already exists and getting some tax cuts, I'm for tax cuts 100%.No reason to flame here. I believe everyone should make his choices according to what's truly important to him. Take me, for instance. Given a choice between voting for a president that has signed a gun control law and voting for a third party candidate, I'll take the third party candidate 100% of the time.
11
posted on
05/09/2003 6:28:56 PM PDT
by
templar
To: Almondjoy
There is no reason for anyone to own a semi auto weapon.. not for sport.. not for fun.. and certainly don't need one in self defense(unless that is you have a feeling that a russian 10 man kgb team is coming to your house to kill you in the next couple of days). Good for Bush.. to hell with idiocy that the NRA can stoop itself to. 1. 2/3 of all handguns are semi-auto. Did you know that, son.
2. It's not called the bill of needs, son. It's called the bill of rights. I'll repeat myself since it's obvious from your post. Bill of RIGHTS.
3. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
4. Did you know that most semi-autos are not covered by this ban?
12
posted on
05/09/2003 6:30:08 PM PDT
by
Dan from Michigan
("Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash!")
To: lainie
Yes, but it's not like gun owners are going to vote against President Bush if he signs it. Who are we kidding? He'll sign the bill and we'll vote for him, win-win situation for him.
To: Almondjoy
No government agent, other than the standing military, should be better armed than the average citizen. Period. The whole reason behind the 2nd was to give the people the power to keep the govt in check.
Swat teams, FBI, ATF all have access to assault weapons, semi and FULL auto.
14
posted on
05/09/2003 6:31:11 PM PDT
by
Stopislamnow
(A Religion? yah. right.)
To: Almondjoy
I got one thing to say to you.
Come and get them then.
What part of shall not be infringed can't you get through your skull?
To: Almondjoy

It can happen here.
16
posted on
05/09/2003 6:37:13 PM PDT
by
lainie
( KGB, SS, ATF, FBI, CPS...)
To: af_vet_rr
If he signs this Nancy Johnson of Connectict will not get my vote, and neither will he. She barely made it in the last election.
To: Almondjoy
As someone pointed out on an earlier thread, this whole AWB crock of excrement really isn't about features or capabilities, it is about the statists removing guns from a (reasonably) free people.
One kind at a time.
What's your opinion about that?
18
posted on
05/09/2003 6:44:44 PM PDT
by
niteowl77
(I like .357 leverguns, but I will defend your right to carry a Match Target HBAR)
To: upchuck
This weapon ban already exists. So, given a choice between extending something that already exists and getting some tax cuts, I'm for tax cuts 100%. YOU MAY NOW FLAME AWAY!!!! *THIS* weapon ban does NOT already exist. It could and will most likely be at least somewhat more restrictive and permanent.
19
posted on
05/09/2003 6:44:55 PM PDT
by
PuNcH
To: Almondjoy
You've got be kidding ! Here's a a little secret, the "Assault Weapons ban" isn't about banning, it's about the State having the gun monopoly. Eventually, the government will seek to ban all guns. Slaves don't own guns.
20
posted on
05/09/2003 6:46:25 PM PDT
by
lawdog
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson